For better or for worse I grew up in the early internet days of the fitness industry. Combining Joe Weider magazines with random forums, I hobbled together a training program guaranteed to blitz my biceps, slice my quads and shred my abs. That at least, was the promise. I remember training long hours every day in the gym focusing on 20-plus sets for biceps and triceps but avoiding squatting with knees over the toes. Deadlifts were also out of the question for a very long time.
Put simply, I was a very earnest, but confused individual. In my defense, it was very difficult to get good information for drug-free trainees during this period as bodybuilding had an effective chokehold on popular fitness advice and everyone was drinking the same Kool-Aid of lots of sets, forced reps, anabolic windows and 21s for biceps. A few fitness writers bucked the trend with no-nonsense advice but my goodness were they difficult to find as a teenager.
Through luck or circumstance, I was given Ian King’s 2002 book Get Buffed: Ian King’s Guide to Getting Bigger, Stronger & Leaner about four years into my gym journey. King was/is an Australian-based strength coach who, since the 1980s, has worked with athletes and members of the general public across all experience levels. His writing has always been simple, direct and effective. Rather than blitzing my biceps, King’s book encouraged me to get strong, focus on core movements and think about my training beyond the next workout.
This book, along with Dan John‘s writings, made a huge impact on how I considered movement and strength and, much like John McCallum‘s writings, I find myself returning to King’s books and articles again and again.
With all the attention given to Mike Mentzer, Reps in Reserve, Myo-Reps etc. in the present fitness age I wanted to return to one of King’s most impactful Chapters from Get Buffed – How Hard Should I Train?
Introduction
You’ve read the articles in the magazines and seen the pictures – the only way to go is ‘balls to the wall’ every training session. Or is it? Most people take this approach but that’s perhaps got more to do with misinformation and misunderstanding than anything else.
Consider this. Anabolic drug use in sport commenced sometime around the 1960’s, and this was not the first ergogenic ever used. During the seventies, the medical profession, out of ignorance or whatever, maintained the line that anabolic drug use didn’t have any positive effect on athletic performance or enhancement of lean muscle tissue. The elite athletes knew otherwise. During the 1980’s, bodybuilding magazines chose not to discuss the drugs issue, insisting or inferring that the 40- 60 set workouts that their star’s were doing were ‘clean’. It was taboo to write about drugs, but everyone reading the bodybuilding magazines were perhaps copying the training
methods of those who had chemical assistance to raise their work/ recovery capacity.
It wasn’t until the 90’s that more honest articles on the use of drugs began appearing, perhaps led by publishers such as Bill Phillips (Mile High Publishing and Muscle Media 2000). This was a great advancement in honesty, but now that there were no limits the training articles, in my opinion, assumed that all readers were going to use drugs to support their training
I don’t believe this is the case. I know there are many trainers who for whatever reason chose not to use drugs. This is not a moral discussion. This is a reality. Drugs do increase your work and recovery capacity. If you are not using them, or only use low dosages, you cannot rely on drugs to overcome training error, or to ensure progress despite your training mistakes.
I would go so far as to say that there is not a power sport in the world that has not had the average training load expectations raised as a result of systematic drug use. So, for example, athletes in countries whose coach adopted the East German training methods minus the drugs do it tough!
In effect, this situation in bodybuilding has led recreational bodybuilders to believe that there is no other way than to use drugs. Their use of conventional, traditional bodybuilding methods have left them with minimal results. It may be diffi- cult to get the extreme results that certain drug programs may be able to provide, but the smart application of training methods outlined in this book will give you an alternative. I can make this statement because of the thousands of drug-free athletes whose training I have had the opportunity to experiment with, and learn the cause-effect relationships of my training methods.
Training intensity can be defined in a number of ways :
- the shortening of the rest period : the focus in this method is to reduce the rest periods between sets as a form of progression. This is from the metabolic perspective, focusing on the discomfort of working under lactic acid. This method ignores the neural component, but is effective for certain hypertrophy components (e.g. increase size of slow twitch or Type 1 muscle fibers, increased capillarization, short-term elevation of hormones including Growth Hormone);
- the percentage of the maximum lift : is usually based on a 1RM (one repetition maximum – how much weight you can lift for 1 rep). For example, you may have 100 kgs 1 RM – 80% of that is 80 kgs, and there may be say an expectation to perform 5 reps at this 80%. This method focuses more on the neural training effect, but is not reliable unless you know your RM for each lift, and on each training day – which for anyone other than competitive lifters, is not practical. The chances of over-training or under-training using this method of load prescription is high;
- the perceived exertion matched with number of reps : this method uses a perception of effort matched with a number of reps e.g. do 5 reps with a load that causes high level fatigue but not total failure. Provided the communication is clear, this is the method I prefer.
There is nothing wrong with using a period of time dedicated to reducing the time frame of the rest period. I just wouldn’t use this for too long. This would negate two very important realities of strength training – the neural component (which is still under-exploited by most), and that strength training is for my mind an anaerobic activity, not an aerobic activity. Improving aerobic work capacity or muscle endurance has limited impact on strength, power and hypertrophy of the larger and more responsive muscle fibers, the fast twitch or Type 11 fi- bers. The majority of time should be spent with longer rest periods, and manipulating the variable of load and perceived ef- fort, not reducing the rest periods.
So what is the answer to the question – how hard should I train?
Periodize intensity! That’s right – cycle it, vary it according to a plan. And what is a plan that you can use to periodize intensity?
Consider this – in week 1 of a new cycle, you face in most cases an unfamiliar exercise. This in itself will cause adequate muscle micro-trauma from which to recover. Realize also that your neural intra and inter-muscular coordination on this exercise will not be optimal. Therefore any attempts to lift maximally will compromise adherence to any pre-determined technique (I hope there is a pre-determined technique plan!).
If you commence a training cycle at 100% of your maximum, I suggest that the subsequent fatigue may exceed your ability to recover, and under most circumstances, you may not be able to carry improvements beyond the first or second week (this limitation has historically been overcome by increasing dosage of ergogenic aids, an option not available to or chosen by all). Put simply, you may feel like you are getting weaker in this lift over the subsequent weeks.
I believe that for most people most of the time the above model is excessive, and gains stagnate as a result. Of course, if you never experienced what I have described in the above table, you need not read any further. However, for those who can identify with this situation, I have created a more progressive model (see Figure 13) which allows for super-compensation of strength (i.e. elevated ability) by avoiding excessive stress on the recovery system.
In brief, I suggest that the first week of any new training cycle be treated as an ‘exposure week’, not a maximum effort week. What is often overlooked is the adaptation that results simply from the exposure – not only is a maximum effort unnecessary, it may also be counterproductive! Additionally, this sub-maximal approach in the first week allows for greater focus on technique. The second week aims to work to the current limit, and the aim of the third week may be to create new levels of strength (see Figure 14). This progressive in-tensity approach can be modified to suit a training block of various weeks (e.g. 2,4 or more weeks etc.).
Figure 14 – Key concepts and aims of progressive application of intensity within a cycle.
|
Week or Micro-cycle Number |
Key Concepts and Aims |
|
1 |
• sub-maximal load (from spotter, instructor or coach); make sure you get it in this week |
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
• work to supra-maximal levels • the start-cycle maximum may now be higher, in which case you are really only working to your new maximum levels • some missed reps may occur (but don’t aim for them), or you may use overload methods – so use spotters • minimize technique breakdown |
Another method of cycling intensity is to alter speed of movement from week to week (see Figure 15). I believe this is only suited for advanced strength athletes or those solely pursuing hypertrophy i.e. that do not want to build strength in any specific exercise. This method involves the manipulation of at least two major variables from week to week – load and speed of movement. I believe that this interferes with continuity or building on previous work. In addition it become a challenge to determine the cause-effect relationship as you are moving two variables — load and speed. For those wishing to accurately monitor strength change in specific exercises I would discourage this method.
What about forced and assisted reps to increase intensity? :
These are methods that present a stimulus that is either greater than a 1RM (e.g. eccentric overload) or greater in effort than a maximum voluntary contraction involves (e.g. assisted reps). You can call them ‘supra-maximal’ efforts. They are in themselves effective, but how often should they be used? If you use them for more than 2 weeks consecutively and you progress, great. Perhaps you have superior recovery ability. I suggest that they present excessive fatigue levels, and therefore if your recovery ability is anything less than supe- rior, they are only effective if used sparingly e.g. 1-2 sets per
week per exercise, for no more than 2 weeks consecutively. In total, I see their role in the perspective of less than 10 % of your total training program. However, generally speaking, the more advanced you become, the more you may need to use these methods.
In the above example, I use a three-week cycle, which will be the cycle that most of you will probably be using. And if you aren’t, just adjust the above example to suit the number of weeks in your cycle. If your training cycle is longer, use smaller increments of intensity progression, so that the first and last week emphasis is the same. And if you use a shorter number of weeks in your cycle (e.g. 2 wks), condense the pro- gressions.
Note that whilst I chose to control the use of intensity, I believe intensity to be more important than volume in strength training. In fact, in any athletic endeavor where neural adaptations dominate (e.g. speed training, power sports) , I will prioritize intensity over volume.
As I have stressed throughout – don’t focus on how hard you can train – rather focus on how hard you should train so that, when combined with the amount of time and type of recovery you have available before repeating the same workout, will give you the best result. And don’t blindly assume you should train as hard as you ‘imagine’ others do!
Discover more from Physical Culture Study
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great post!
ank you for fitting it perfectly